Panasonic LX100 is the only compact camera listed.
(I presume Leica new D-Lux would be too, which is Leica's version of the same).

This sounds worrying: serious compact market is underdeveloped, or everybody does the same boring thing?
Perhaps both.
Panasonic came with a breath of fresh air and made the category exciting.

PS. BH Photovideo does one mistake: 645Z' ISO rating is not converted / translated into other formats to be comparable/understandable. Its maximum ISO 204K is some ISO 300+K in 35mm terms, and even more in APS-C terms.

They are selling cameras and this is a good way for them to advertise what they are selling (at least the expensive, new camera bodies). They are all fine cameras in their own way. I don't think anyone would sneer at a 645z if it was gifted to them, I certainly wouldn't, nor any of the other cameras on the list (although I would probably return/sell them and get gear that was more useful for myself).

Ah, some want to convert aperture to FF equivalent, now we need to convert ISO ?

ROTFLMAO

Well yes. Because for one reason, camera manufacturers do not standardise ISO to some universal specific light gathering bucket, only to the size of their own bucket, or, used sensor size. And 99.9% of people do not know that.
So they read, some APS-C camera has max of ISO 51K, and then they compare that 51K with 645Z 204K and think their APS-C isn't that bad. And they draw a totally wrong conclusion.
Or, they see some FF has max ISO of 300K, and they think that FF surpasses the 645Z. Again, wrong conclusion.

So yes, the apertures and ISO should be standardised by using the same denominator. So people would know that they are not buying a f2.8 lens in a pocket camera.

Well yes. Because for one reason, camera manufacturers do not standardise ISO to some universal specific light gathering bucket, only to the size of their own bucket, or, used sensor size. And 99.9% of people do not know that.
So they read, some APS-C camera has max of ISO 51K, and then they compare that 51K with 645Z 204K and think their APS-C isn't that bad. And they draw a totally wrong conclusion.
Or, they see some FF has max ISO of 300K, and they think that FF surpasses the 645Z. Again, wrong conclusion.

So yes, the apertures and ISO should be standardised by using the same denominator. So people would know that they are not buying a f2.8 lens in a pocket camera.

The irony of all that is that ISO stands for "International Organization for Standardization"!!!

Ah, some want to convert aperture to FF equivalent, now we need to convert ISO ?

ROTFLMAO

That's because some people could be confused by the actual physical properties of their lenses and cameras, apparently. So the equivalence advocates, who are of course in no way confused themselves :-), think people need to be protected from their own ignorance.

The idea that people might actually understand the properties of the format they choose to use doesn't really occur to them. To be honest, if you don't even know which format you're using, you probably don't care about the effects of aperture anyway.

The main point seems to be to compare apples to oranges and to win an argument that the apple is definitively better than the orange.